Speaking with Mitchell Plitnick, Rosen, co-chair of the Rabbinical Council of Jewish Voice for Peace, stressed that the views both in his book and [...]]]>
Rabbi Brant Rosen leads a congregation in Evanston, Illinois and is author of the new book, Wrestling in the Daylight: A Rabbi’s Path to Palestinian Solidarity.Speaking with Mitchell Plitnick, Rosen, co-chair of the Rabbinical Council of Jewish Voice for Peace, stressed that the views both in his book and in this interview are his own and do not represent his congregation. Excerpts follow.
Q: How has your personal view of Israel changed in the past four years?
A: I had seen the conflict as two peoples having two legitimate claims to the land of Israel-Palestine and the only way out of the morass is two states for two peoples. I had identified with Israel as a Jew; that was my narrative growing up. I have deep familial relationships there, visited Israel many times, and even considered moving there.
The shift in my views was a gradual thing, but the breaking point was Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009 (this was the name Israel gave to its assault on the Gaza Strip at that time). I came to realise this was not a conflict between two equal parties but an essential injustice that began with the birth of the state of Israel and has continued since that time. It is a situation of one very powerful party bending the other to its will.
Once I spoke out about Israel’s outrages in Cast Lead, the dominoes really started to fall for me. As a congregational rabbi I was in a difficult place and people looked to me for guidance. About a year after that, I reassessed my relationship as a Jew to Israel, to the entire issue, not just Gaza, but about Zionism in general.
I become more involved in Palestine Solidarity work, reaching out to Palestinians, some of whom were friends and others who were activists in this area. So many of them reached out to me when I spoke out on Gaza, and I wanted to learn from them what their experience of this issue was.
Today, I know where I stand, very much a rabbi in the Jewish community, still serving my congregation, still motivated by Jewish values, but also someone who stands in solidarity with Palestinians in their struggle for human rights, equal rights and dignity in the land they either live in or seek to return to.
Q: Jewish Voice for Peace is one of the leading groups involved in targeted divestment from Israel’s occupation, a part of the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to bring public economic and political pressure on Israel. How do you see the future of this movement?
A: I think the movement is growing by leaps and bounds, attracting more and more people. When the U.N. vote on Palestine’s non-member status hit, it drowned out another story I thought was actually more important: Stevie Wonder backed out of a fundraising concert for a U.S. group called the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces.
He is the latest celebrity to express his support for the Palestinian cause by cancelling such concerts following a long list of artists and entertainers who have cancelled shows in Israel. Whether they did it because of public pressure or because they believed it to be right, it shows the power of the boycott movement.
To create political change, leveraging people power is the best method; historically, this has consistently been the case. The fact that Israel reacts so harshly against it shows its potential. When Hillary Clinton says 3,000 new settlement units are “not helpful”, that doesn’t get Israel’s attention.
On the other hand, when Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Justice in Palestine and a wide range of church groups succeed in getting a large holding company to divest from the occupation, that’s front page news in Israel. That is a sign that this has a great impact, when used in a smart and concerted way.
Contrary to the frequent accusations, BDS is not anti-Semitic. I think the argument that it unfairly singles out Israel from other human rights abusers is disingenuous… The question is not whether Israel is legitimate; it exists and is part of the international community. But if Israel acts in an illegitimate way, citizens around the world have the right and responsibility to leverage what power they can to get them to cease.
Q: Do you think the recent call by 15 mainstream Protestant leaders of many different denominations for an inquiry into whether U.S. aid to Israel is in compliance with existing U.S. law is a significant new development?
A: Yes. I think the most important thing is that the leaders are standing firm and are not backing down despite being excoriated and being called everything up to and including anti-Semites. That is important because up until now the covenant on religious relations has been that you can talk about anything BUT Israel, and this time they’ve broken with that.
They have until now been bullied by the Jewish establishment. This can usher in a new relationship where we can talk about anything, not only the things we have in common, but also these issues, like Israeli policy, where we don’t always agree. I’m proud that JVP stood behind the statement.
Jewish leaders said they would walk out of a planned interfaith summit, and demanded a separate summit to discuss these issues. I thought this was very damaging, this is not something resembling dialogue.
The Church leaders have issued a second statement saying they would be happy to meet with Jewish leaders about this, that we’re happy to talk, but we are not going back on what we said. This is very healthy; this is real dialogue, which occurs when you focus on the painful issues you don’t agree on.
It’s very important that Christians see that many Jews do stand with them when they make statements like this. The Jewish establishment does not represent the Jewish community. The Jewish community is much larger and more complex than these unaccountable representatives whose names most Jews don’t even know.
*Rabbi Brant Rosen blogs at Shalom Rav
]]>The National Iranian American Council’s Reza Marashi, who served at the Office of Iranian Affairs at the US Department of State during the transition from the Bush to Obama administration, on the key foreign policy issue facing the next president of the United States:
Political parties in the US do [...]]]>
The National Iranian American Council’s Reza Marashi, who served at the Office of Iranian Affairs at the US Department of State during the transition from the Bush to Obama administration, on the key foreign policy issue facing the next president of the United States:
]]>Political parties in the US do not dictate the range of options available to an American president. Obama and Romney face the same reality: the tools of statecraft are simple – war or diplomacy. Anything else – whether it is called containment, regime change or dual track – is simply a tactic that delays the inevitable choice between these two options. The inconvenient truth of statecraft is that most conflicts – even war – end via negotiations; and everything before negotiations – including war – is for leverage. Efforts to delay this inevitable choice have only added pressure to escalate to the worst possible outcome.
If the next US President wants peace, he must recalibrate US policy to consider seriously the political, economic and security incentives sought by Iran – incentives that any diplomatic solution would have to address. This does not imply that concessions must be made on each of these fronts. Only robust diplomacy can determine whether it is in America’s interest to address Iranian concerns. But if America does not lead a process of sustained negotiations, then diplomacy will be deemed one-sided, and will fail without having being executed in good faith.
Naturally, it takes two to tango. No policy can guarantee success, and it remains unclear whether Iran will reciprocate American overtures. But if peace is the metric of success, then diplomacy provides a better guarantee than war. With that in mind, the next US President can best avoid mistakes like the Iraq war by learning from limits of American military prowess – and placing the same level of confidence in the power of American diplomacy.
This begs the question: what exactly is it?
As my lead suggests, it’s not the first [...]]]>
This week, as minds here in New York and elsewhere are inevitably drawn back to 9/11 and its aftermath, the U.N. General Assembly (GA) will once again discuss the worldwide promoting a Culture of Peace.
This begs the question: what exactly is it?
As my lead suggests, it’s not the first time the topic has passed our U.N. news desk.
Spearheaded by UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2000 became the U.N. Year for a Culture of Peace. For those who missed it, the GA doubled down on the concept a year later by declaring a Decade of the Culture of Peace (2001-2010) in which it took a stab at involving civil society in creating a global movement for peace culture.
75 million people signed a 2000 Manifesto pledging their support – Meanwhile, a quick survey among my friends revealed that, unfortunately, none knew of it.
“Peace is the absence of war” continues to be an evergreen. But how exactly do you create a culture in which war is absent? What is a Culture of Peace?
In a 1999 resolution and Programme of Action prepared by UNESCO, the GA agreed on eight elements of a Culture of Peace.
Here’s a little overview, drawn from the ’99 resolution and various works of David Adams, former Director of the UNESCO Unit for the Year of a Culture of Peace and an expert on the brain mechanism of aggression.
1. Education for Peace
Since warfare is a learned behaviour, according to Adams, a key component to building a Culture of Peace is a shift from an authoritarian and war-centric educational tradition to a participatory education on values and modes of behaviour that allow youth to resolve disputes non-violently and with respect for human dignity.
This education ought to take place not only in schools, but include informal education taking place through the family and the media, as well as non-governmental and community organizations.
2. Understanding, tolerance and solidarity
The act of “othering” people and designating an enemy is a key component to warfare and detrimental to a Culture of Peace.
Instead, the U.N. and social institutions at all levels ought to foster dialogue and actions that build mutual understanding, tolerance and solidarity.
3. Democratic participation
Hierarchical structures and authoritarianism that are at the centre of warfare ought to be replaced with people’s democratic involvement at all levels of decision-making affecting their lives.
In addition to stronger education on democratic principles, the resolution mentions capacity-building of public officials to strengthen institutions and processes that promote democracy.
4. Free flow of information and knowledge
A strong and free media is essential to documenting and promoting peace culture, while networks are essential social infrastructures.
Propaganda and secrecy, on the other hand, are essential to maintaining public approval for warfare. A free flow of information is thus essential to building a culture of peace in which an informed population is able to exercise its democratic rights to voice disapproval of acts of aggression.
5. Equality of women and men
Male domination is a central part of the culture of war, according to Adams, not because of a genetic disposition to warfare, but because of the age-old initiation of men into war and women’s systematic exclusion from it.
A transformation to a Culture of Peace therefore requires power sharing and the equal participation of women in decision-making.
6. Sustainable human development for all
Building secure livelihoods and the ability to lead healthy productive lives are key to building and maintaining peace.
Debt relief for developing countries, post-conflict reconciliation processes, and a special focus on the needs of women and children in developing strategies are listed as state-based contributions to a Culture of Peace.
7. Disarmament
While this may seem like a no-brainer, disarmament was actually among the last two items to be added to the action agenda, which originally only had six points.
It finally made it in under the header “Actions to promote international peace and security”, with complete disarmament as the top action item.
8. Respect for human rights
Respect for human rights as an essential component of peace culture encompasses many of the above points and should need little explanation.
Among the action items, the U.N. declaration sought the full implementation of the 1993 Vienna Declaration and the development national programmes and institutions to protect human rights.
]]>